도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Since the facts charged for driving under influence on April 6, 2013 among the first instance court of the prosecutor (1) are fully recognized by evidence, the first instance court that judged otherwise is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.
(2) The penalty of the second instance court (10 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance and tried concurrently at the court of first instance. Each of the crimes of the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and as seen below, insofar as the court of second instance approves the prosecutor’s appeal with respect to the punishment of the court of second instance and selects imprisonment, the court of first instance shall simultaneously render a judgment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's allegation of misunderstanding of facts on the first judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. Of the judgment of the first instance, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial against the prosecutor’s assertion of misconception of facts against the acquittal portion is the prosecutor, and the conviction of the guilty should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the first instance court, the 112 report regarding the instant traffic accident was received on the day.